The plot to breach Mesa County’s voting system and then hide that hack was brought into sharp focus Thursday afternoon during the criminal trial of former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters. The scheme was laid out by Peters’ friend and conspiracy partner who took the stand for the defense in the seventh day of Peters’ criminal trial.
Sherronna Bishop, a far-right activist who calls herself America’s Mom, testified as the defense team’s first witness that she and Peters decided they needed to show that Dominion Voting Systems computer programs are set up for fraud.
A trial that was supposed to avoid references to election fraud has wandered repeatedly into the weeds of national election-fraud beliefs.
Bishop played up the conspiracy element Thursday by confidently describing the scheme she engaged in with Peters and the help they had at both the national and local level.
☀️ READ MORE
Tina Peters declines to testify in her own trial after judge refuses request to tell prosecutors “not to bully me around”
Tina Peters’ chief aide testifies about her role in the hunt for Mesa County “phantom voters”
Trial of former Mesa County clerk Tina Peters details web of right-wing activists, election deniers in her orbit
Bishop began by poking holes in testimony from prosecution witness Gerald Wood, a local software engineer. Wood testified last week that he was duped into having his identity and his security credentials used by someone else so Peters could access the county’s election system — actions that would supposedly help to prove the 2020 election was fraudulent and votes were manipulated.
Bishop verified chats on the encrypted messaging system Signal that included Wood and showed he was aware of the scheme. Wood had testified he was unaware of Peters and Bishop’s plan.
Bishop had been the elephant in the courtroom in the first week of the trial as her name came up repeatedly with witnesses describing her part in hatching and carrying out the plan to breach the elections system.
Bishop did not deny that she had a major part in directing it, even though she was not an employee of the Mesa County Clerk and Recorder’s office. She placed Peters in the middle of it as a willing participant who appeared to be following Bishop’s directions.
Key witness details how plot took shape
Bishop testified about conspiring with Peters, Wood and two other Mesa County elections officials to set up a secure account for access to the Mesa County voting system. The plan Bishop described had Wood agreeing to allow his identity to be used so that a self-described computer expert named Conan Hayes could pretend to be Wood to access confidential voting equipment.
Bishop made the arrangements to bring Hayes from California to Grand Junction to make a “forensic image” of the election system.
She said she later apologized to Wood because he wouldn’t be getting the credit he deserved for helping to expose election fraud.
That proof of fraud was promised but never delivered.
Bishop also admitted bringing in national election-fraud promoters to plan the scheme. She hosted an event with high-profile 2020 election denier, mathematician Douglas Frank. Mesa County election officials were ordered to attend Frank’s talk that described how “phantom voters” could be found on the voting system database if they only had access to inner workings.
☀️ READ MORE
Meet the Colorado man whose identity was allegedly stolen by Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters
Gerald Wood thought it was odd when after meeting with Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters he was told to hand over the county ID badge he had just been issued to be a contractor for her office. It was May 2021 and Wood, a private sector software engineer who goes by “Jerry,” had recently been…
Read more
Bishop said Frank, Peters, and their collaborators in Mesa County feared the Colorado Secretary of State’s office was going to delete files and voting records during what is called a “trusted build.” The trusted build is a regular upgrade of software in Colorado counties’ Dominion voting machines.
During attorney conferences at the judge’s bench, Bishop, wearing a sleeveless, cream-colored dress and matching high heels, winked and smiled at jurors from her witness seat. Several jurors appeared to briefly smile back.
Bishop’s name had come up so often in the first seven days of the trial that it prompted multiple questions from jurors prior to her appearance.
“Why did you take direction from Bishop?” a juror asked of Peters’ former deputy clerk Belinda Knisley, who previously pleaded guilty to trespassing, official misconduct and violation of duty for her part in the election equipment tampering.
“Why was she (Bishop) invited to meetings?”
“Was Bishop always involved in happenings in the office?”
For a time in the spring and summer of 2021, witness testimony, including Bishop’s, made it clear that Bishop was very involved in the operation of the clerk’s office.
She used the term “we” when she talked in messages about what clerks could do to investigate their systems.
Bishop could still face charges, judge warns
Before her testimony, Bishop was advised by 21st Judicial District Judge Matthew Barrett that she still faces criminal exposure for her testimony in a case that she has not been charged in. The court has listed her as an unindicted co-conspirator for her part in the election breach.
Peters, 68, is being tried on seven felonies and three misdemeanors alleging she participated in identity theft, criminal impersonation, official misconduct and violating her duties as a county clerk when she carried out the clandestine election-equipment scheme three years ago.
Peters has denied she committed any crimes.
Bishop’s appearance Thursday created a stir of excitement in a courtroom that otherwise involved lengthy spells of dry legal details, disputes over witnesses and arguments over evidence this week. Barrett had advised jurors Wednesday that the trial was running a day and a half behind schedule because attorneys on both sides were taking too much time on tangential arguments.
“This should be a simple case,” Barrett said.
Multiple witnesses have been testifying to the same elements of the case. They have laid out how Bishop and Peters, working in lockstep, engineered a plot that unraveled and then exploded into public view in the spring and summer of 2021.
The case has been complicated by the fact that Peters has a team of four attorneys who have a squad of consultants, clerks and other helpers who tote piles of cardboard boxes, plastic bins, metal trunks and shelves of binders into and out of the courtroom each day.
The defense team began delving into some of those containers and laying out their case with Bishop after about four days of prosecution witnesses.
Bishop had worked as a makeup artist prior to making her mark in the political world by serving as Lauren Boebert’s campaign manager during Boebert’s first run for her 3rd Congressional District seat. She moved into the national right-wing conspiracy political arena after a falling out with Boebert.
Bishop gained national standing as an election fraud promoter. She started a conservative organization called America’s Mom and lately has been hosting a regular conspiracy-promoting podcast with her husband called America’s Mom & The Mr.
She has made regular appearances on shows hosted by election-deniers including Steve Bannon, Mike Lindell and Michael Flynn. She has been pictured on social media rubbing shoulders with former President Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago.
Even though Bishop has never been an employee of the Mesa County Clerk and Recorder’s Office, witnesses described her issuing orders to elections workers. Former elections manager Sandra Brown was advised by Bishop to take the computer tower from the secure voting room after the Colorado Secretary of State’s office publicly revealed in August 2021 that the Mesa County office was under investigation.
Peters warns accomplices to keep quiet
Bishop was on some calls with Peters when Peters instructed elections employees that they should keep quiet if law enforcement tried to question them.
Bishop moved to Texas from Rifle in 2022 after local, state and federal law enforcement officers searched her home looking for items related to the Mesa County election system breach.
She loudly described officers breaking down the door to her home, taking all her electronic equipment and “manhandling” one of her four children. That account was cut off by the prosecution objection.
Bishop said she still maintains partial residency in Colorado and has continued to do political organizing here, including fomenting controversies in school district matters.
The Daily Sun-Up podcast | More episodes
Bishop organized rallies and other events in Peters’ defense. She was front and center every time a crowd gathered to support Peters.
Two former Peters employees gave similar detailed accounts of the turmoil in the office after Peters learned information taken from her county’s system had been released on the internet.
In Wednesday’s testimony, former elections manager and prosecution witness Sandra Brown testified that Peters was panicked.
Brown said Peters called her into her office and repeated what former assistant clerk Belinda Knisley told the jury Tuesday.
“I’m f—ked,” Brown said Peters told her. “I am going to jail.”
Peters disappeared for about five weeks after that information was released, but the employees said a web of election-deniers and attorneys went into action in an attempt to offset the damage.
“A bunch of malarkey”
It was during that time that Brown said Bishop called her and told her to get the server and remove it from the secure tabulation room.
“Did you get the server?” prosecuting attorney Janet Drake asked.
“No,” Brown answered. “Why not?” Drake asked.
“Because that would be stupid,” Brown replied.
Brown called the idea that the server contained proof of dead people who had voted — phantom voters — “a bunch of malarkey.”
Brown spent two months in jail for her part in the voting-system breach.
Brown also testified that the revelation of the stolen election materials prompted a cloak-and-dagger scramble in the clerk’s office. She testified that Peters instructed her, Knisley and Bishop to buy “burner” phones that wouldn’t be recorded by investigators.
She said Bishop told her many times “don’t say anything,” to investigators.
Half of one day of the trial this week was taken up by the prosecution arguing to quash a subpoena. The defense had sought to have Dominion Elections System chief counsel testify but Barrett ruled against it.
“That is a rabbit hole we are not going to go down,” Barrett said while explaining — as he has so often during the trial — that the functionality of the Dominion voting equipment was not part of the charges against Peters.
Type of Story: News
Based on facts, either observed and verified directly by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
